A new narrative review in Sports Medicine Open evaluates the tension between the proven performance benefits of commercial sports foods and their classification as ultra-processed products.
In September 2026, a narrative review in Sports Medicine Open examined the tension between the practical benefits of sports foods and their classification as ultra-processed products. Authors Sara F. Forbes, Louise M. Burke, Evangeline Mantzioris and Adrienne K. Forsyth highlight a complex reality for active adults. These individuals rely on engineered nutrition to maintain physical independence during demanding activities. The findings force us to ask when commercial sports foods serve a strategic purpose and when ordinary foods might better support long-term health.
The narrative review centers on the NOVA classification system. This framework groups foods based on the nature and extent of their processing rather than their nutritional value. Under NOVA, many popular gels, carbohydrate drinks and protein-fortified snacks fall into the ultra-processed category. They often contain ingredients like protein isolates, maltodextrins and emulsifiers that are uncommon in ordinary home kitchens.
This classification creates a paradox for adults pursuing lifelong mobility and endurance. A 2024 umbrella review in the BMJ associated greater exposure to ultra-processed foods with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes. Specifically, the evidence for cardiometabolic and mental-health effects was described as convincing or highly suggestive. A subsequent review of 104 prospective studies linked ultra-processed dietary patterns to increased chronic-disease risk in 92 studies.
However, applying these general-population findings directly to athletic scenarios requires careful nuance. The Sports Medicine Open review states clearly that no studies have directly linked sports-food consumption to health outcomes in athletes. The broader concern regarding these foods is extrapolated from general dietary research. A specialized carbohydrate gel consumed mid-marathon serves a fundamentally different biological purpose than a heavily processed snack eaten passively at a desk.
To date, the athlete-specific evidence base regarding ultra-processed foods remains incredibly sparse. The new review identified only one study that examined high ultra-processed food consumption alongside fitness measures in an athletic population. That specific study focused on elite basketball players and found no differences in cardiovascular fitness or anthropometric measures between groups. While altered gut microbiota were observed in the athletes, the findings were confounded by high fat intake and suboptimal carbohydrate consumption.
Because researchers have not established a direct causal link between athletic health and commercial sports nutrition, the conversation remains nuanced. A 2026 meta-analysis of randomized trials reported greater weight gain and faster eating in ultra-processed food trial arms. However, the certainty of this evidence was low, and the diets involved were not matched for their specific nutrient profiles. The exact health impact of a sports product relies heavily on its unique energy profile and the physical demands placed upon the user.
Understanding processing categories also remains difficult for both consumers and professionals. In one UK study cited by the review, only 13 percent of participants correctly categorized all foods shown to them. Furthermore, the review reports that more than half of dietitians were unfamiliar with NOVA, while fewer than one-quarter correctly classified many grain foods. Even standard items face inconsistent categorization; plain yogurt might be considered minimally processed, while flavored yogurt is frequently labeled ultra-processed.
Despite ongoing classification debates, commercial sports foods remain immensely popular for their unmatched convenience and performance benefits. The review cites research showing that roughly 70 percent of German-speaking triathletes, cyclists and runners use a combination of commercial sports products and ordinary foods. Athletes consistently choose engineered products because they are highly portable, easy to consume and less likely to cause severe gastrointestinal discomfort.
When selecting fuel, immediate physical needs often outrank broader environmental concerns. In an Irish survey of 1,145 athletes, sensory appeal, food and health awareness and performance were the leading influences on food choices. Interestingly, sustainability ranked in the lowest quartile of priorities for those surveyed individuals. These products simply offer a predictable energy source when variables like weather, fatigue and terrain are highly unpredictable.
Yet, a major gap exists in our understanding of habitual intake. No study has accurately quantified athletes’ ultra-processed food intake as a specific percentage of total energy intake. Without measuring total energy contribution, it is difficult to determine when strategic fueling crosses into a concerning dietary reliance. Active adults focused on Healthy Aging & Performance must differentiate between occasional event nutrition and everyday dietary staples.
For the worldly adult who prioritizes capability, this research demands a highly strategic approach to fueling. Using the right energy source at the correct time is critical for travel recovery, altitude adjustment and sustained performance during adventure sports. The primary goal is distinguishing between daily nutritional staples and the specialized tools required for demanding environments. Relying on minimally processed foods makes perfect sense at home, but engineered products offer undeniable logistical advantages in the field.
We have seen the immense value of targeted, contextual strategies firsthand during demanding global travel. After a grueling thirty hour transit to Tokyo, I realized my old strategy of just powering through was no longer working. I felt foggy for three days. I started digging into circadian biology and realized that timing my light exposure and fasting during the flight could completely shift my recovery. Now, I never board a long haul flight without a precise schedule for when to eat and when to put on an eye mask. It is the difference between losing a week of your trip and hitting the ground running.
Just as timing matters for travel recovery, the duration of your physical activity should dictate your fueling strategy. A summary citing American College of Sports Medicine recommendations states that people exercising for less than an hour may not need gels, sports drinks or energy bars. For these shorter training sessions, adequate hydration and regular meals are generally sufficient. By omitting engineered products during brief workouts, active adults can naturally limit their unnecessary exposure to ultra-processed ingredients.
However, longer excursions alter the metabolic calculus entirely. According to the same summary of guidelines, longer exercise commonly involves approximately 30 to 60 grams of carbohydrate per hour. This requirement climbs toward 90 grams per hour for physical efforts lasting longer than two and a half hours. When you are navigating a demanding high-altitude hike, carrying enough ordinary food to meet these carbohydrate targets becomes logistically burdensome. Engineered drinks and bars offer a highly concentrated solution when your body requires rapid energy replenishment.
Still, evidence shows that ordinary foods remain highly effective when logistics permit. The review reports that a systematic review found little or no difference in endurance performance between carbohydrate supplements and ordinary foods such as bananas, raisins or potatoes. If your digestive system can process them comfortably, these minimally processed options are superb choices for sustained energy. However, ordinary food may be nutritionally adequate but less convenient to carry or consume while moving at race intensity.
Adopting a food-first mentality does not automatically insulate you from processed ingredients. The review cautions that suggested dietary replacements often span multiple processing categories under the NOVA framework. For example, swapping a commercial sports gel for honey does not guarantee a minimally processed diet. In fact, an Australian analysis found that 40 percent of core foods in the packaged food supply were ultra-processed.
This complexity extends deeply into the environmental considerations of an active lifestyle. While ultra-processed products have been implicated in diet-related environmental impacts, eliminating sports gels will not single-handedly neutralize a carbon footprint. Turkish data involving elite athletes found higher greenhouse-gas emissions and water footprints strongly tied to red-meat and animal-protein consumption. A sustainable approach requires optimizing your total dietary pattern, rather than simply demonizing a single mid-race carbohydrate gel.
By examining the entire context of their nutrition, informed adults can perfectly balance their performance goals with long-term vitality. Understanding the Longevity Trade-Offs Framework allows us to utilize the conveniences of modern sports science without compromising our foundational health.
Active adults should prioritize minimally processed foods for their daily nutritional foundation while strategically reserving engineered sports products for the logistical demands of prolonged, high-intensity activities.
Stay connected for research and practical guidance on longevity, strength, recovery, energy and active living. New ideas to help you stay capable, curious and ready for more.
Explore practical guidance on strength, recovery, energy, travel and longevity for a life that stays active.
explore the Blog
